The information made available to Hong Kong law enforcement during an investigation remains confidential, unless it is necessary to use it in the course of an investigation, prosecution or execution of the order. Although it may be shared with other regulatory authorities or authorities in the context of the information exchange agreements covered in question 57, it would not be communicated to third parties without a court injunction. The Hong Kong Ministry of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for the enforcement of criminal proceedings; the other aforementioned authorities investigate and sometimes carry out criminal measures based on the offences concerned. Cooperation between law enforcement agencies in conducting joint investigations into allegations of wrongdoing by listed companies and their directors and officers has intensified. See as an example the joint CFS and ICAC operations described in question 1. 6 Does your country use cooperation agreements that grant immunity or leniency to those who assist or cooperate with the authorities? CCA is an agreement between government and business that allows the government to impose sanctions on the company and monitor future improvements in compliance by the company, in exchange for the government`s agreement to waive any new investigations and criminal prosecutions. Asian branches of financial institutions are not immune to these data protection authorities and independent observers designated accordingly. Most financial institutions are headquartered or have a branch in the United States, which could be subject to a U.S. data protection authority. When a monitor is designated as a data protection authority, the scope of its mandate can be very broad and require the monitor to assess the effectiveness of internal controls, policies and procedures on topics such as interbank interest rate coordination, anti-money laundering (AML) and sanctions or anti-corruption. Monitoring the culture of a financial institution and moving to a culture of compliance can be inferred or explicitly identified as a priority.
These issues are not limited to one jurisdiction and observers need to understand the situation in Asia as wherever the financial institution operates. This is particularly the case because of the level of financial activity and the risks associated with operating in Asia. To put the level of risk into perspective, 66.67% of Asia Pacific in Transparency International`s Corruption Perceptions Index ranked below 50 out of 100 points in 2015. India, China and Indonesia get only 38, 37 and 36 points respectively (zero being highly corrupt and 100 very clean).